Where in Britain will Syrian refugees live?

“Four thousand a year here? I always say to people, if it was 25,000 a year, that would be 40 people per parliamentary constituency.”David Miliband, 03 February 2016

The background

Has Britain promised to take enough refugees from Syria’s civil war?

The current proposal is to take 20,000 of the most vulnerable displaced Syrians by 2020 – that’s 4,000 people a year.

Former foreign secretary David Miliband is calling for Britain to at least match Canada’s pledge to house 25,000.

Mr Miliband, now president of the International Rescue Committee, told Channel 4 News that if you spread 25,000 out evenly across the UK, it would amount to just a few dozen people in every parliamentary constituency.

But as many people have commented, Britain’s asylum seeker population is not distributed evenly.

According to a string of media reports, some deprived local authorities are housing a disproportionate number, while affluent swathes of the country are free of asylum seekers.

Will the same thing happen with Syrian refugees?

The analysis

Mr Miliband is right to say that 25,000 people divided equally among the UK’s 650 parliamentary constituencies would amount to just under 40 for each area.

But we know that current rules on housing asylum seekers do not divide people equally like this. Some areas are much more affected than others.

This Mirror report from last month is typical of the kind of story that crops up regularly: “Some of the poorest areas in Britain are being used as ‘dumping grounds’ for asylum seekers.

“All of the top 10 areas for highest concentration of asylum seekers are in the north of England, Scotland and Wales… just one of the 31 local authorities which house more than 300 asylum claimants is in the south of England.”

This is all true, if unsurprising. It’s no secret that there are few asylum seekers in London and the South East, because it has been the policy since the Immigration Act 1999 (brought in under Labour, Mirror readers note) generally to avoid settling people in those areas, with a number of exceptions.

The phrase “dumping grounds” might be a bit unfair, as councils have a say in whether claimants are settled in their area, but there is a definite tendency for poorer local authorities to take more people.

Council housing is no longer used to house asylum seekers. Instead, the government hires private contractors to find them accommodation in the private rented sector.

The companies involved – G4S, Serco and Clearel – get a fee for every night of accommodation they provide, so it’s in their interests to keep costs low.

That means they tend to put people in housing in cities with the cheapest housing. And councils have a financial incentive to accept asylum seekers – they get money from government for under-18s, though not adults.

Our interactive map shows where asylum seekers live by council area. We’ve included people in dispersed accommodation and on “subsistence only”, which means they receive a living allowance from the government but not accommodation – usually because they live with family or friends.

These figures cover the second quarter of 2015. Glasgow was home to the most asylum claimants, followed by Liverpool, Birmingham and Cardiff.

The contractors are supposed to consult with councils over exactly where they place people, to avoid putting neighbourhood services under too much pressure.

There is a rule that you should only have one asylum seeker per 200 local residents, although we know of one case where that was breached recently.

Will the same thing happen with the Syrians?

The government says not, insisting that its resettlement policy for the 20,000 people fleeing Syria will be completely different.

Let’s remember that these people are not asylum claimants. They are refugees now living near Syria who have already been assessed and found to be the most vulnerable cases.

After arriving in the UK they will get five years’ Humanitarian Protection status, and unlike asylum seekers, they will be allowed to work and claim benefits.

This time, there won’t be any private contractors. Local authorities will take responsibility for the needs of the new arrivals, with the Home Office providing funding for the first year.

Where will the refugees end up? We don’t know yet, because the government is asking councils to volunteer to take people, and the discussions are still ongoing.

The campaign group Citizens UK has published a list of 93 councils who have “either resettled Syrian refugees already or have made firm commitments to do so”.

The Home Office has not published an official list, but if this accurate, it’s hard to see any obvious geographical or income bias.

There are some very deprived areas on the list – Knowsley, Liverpool, Birmingham – as well as more affluent ones. Most regions of the UK are represented.

The verdict

The voluntary nature of the resettlement scheme means Syrian refugees almost certainly won’t be dispersed evenly around every area of the country, as Mr Miliband suggests.

At the same time, there’s no reason why we would see the concentration of people in poorer urban areas that we get with asylum seekers.

5 reader comments

Alansays:

Why did the British government aid in the destruction of Syria to force Syrians here? Wouldn’t it have been more civilised to just ask them if they wanted to come? We know Mr Cameron likes destruction, but surely he could have been restrained.

Greater London is probably not chosen because already over 50% of the population are recent immigrants and the rest of the South East is under pressure from the mass of “white English refugees” moving out of areas of London which they no longer recognise.

The cluster areas where asylum seekers and refugees are being placed are now saying they are full up, can’t take any more. Bolton, Rochdale, Bradford, Portsmouth, Liverpool city councils are finally speaking out against taking more.

So what about the city which accommodates the greatest numbers of seekers outside London, ie, Glasgow. Why no outcry from Glasgow city councillors? Why are our councillors asking to take in 25% of Scotland’s allotted 2,000 Syrian refugees?

I agree with blogger http://independenttrader.org/immigrants-flooding-europe.html that in order to reduce the number of refugees we need to stop offering them benefits! Isn’t it true that the flow of refugees increased when mother Merkel offered her Homeland and opened her borders? Isn’t it true that most of the refugees aren’t women and children as portrayed by mass media…? In fact, they aren’t even refugees but mainly economic migrants who heard about the benefits. So what lures them here so much? SOCIAL BENEFITS! I believe that hatred, national movements and burning of their shelters will only worsen the situation. What we actually need is treating them like any others. OK you can come, but have in mind that you will have to work, learn the language, respect our laws, culture, religion, respect our women and then you will be able to live here. If not, go back from where you came! We don’t need parasites living on our backs. We work hard to make our living here. Be prepared to do the same.